Wednesday, June 29, 2005

DEMOCRAT CRITIQUE OF BUSH'S SPEECH IS FALSE: Congressional Resolution HR RES #114 - authorizing war on Saddam - cited BOTH 9/11 and al Qaeda

Many Lefties and Democrats - like Senators Boxer and Rockefeller and Dodd and Feingold and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi and DNC Chairman Howeird Dean - have critized Bush's speech last might because it - in their opinion - incorrectly conflated 9/11 & al Qaeda with Saddam and Iraq, AND incorrectly argued that the War in Iraq is-or-ever-was part of the GWOT.

They further argued that Bush was cynically USING 9/11 to shore up public support for him and the war in Iraq.

PARAGRAPHS #10, 11 and 12 - (AS PASSED):
" ... Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; ..."
IN FACT, the resolution was exactly correct in this regard: many terrorists and terrorist organizations WERE given safe-haven in Iraq: Abu Nidal, Abu Zarqawi; and Ansar al Islam and al Qaeda - were but a few of the many. Zarqawi - who is leading al Qaeda in Iraq now was there at least a year BEFORE THE WAR!

For the Left-wing Democrats to claim NOW that Bush is "once again changing his reasons for getting us stuck in a 'quagmire' of Iraq" is an idiotic LIE. And it's pure assinine demagoguery. That the MSM buys it and promotes it UNCRITICALLY only proves that they are still dominated by the Left. (The above link listing the offending Democrats is to the NYTIMES - which did NOT critique the Dems charges; neither did "REUTERS" in their article on the BASELESS Democrat charges against Bush - in fact: they made it their headline!)

Bush and Joint Resolution #114 (and UNSC Resolution 1441) offered many reasons for confronting Saddam with force - and AT THE TIME THE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION PASSED these included 9/11 and al Qaeda AND and this Congressional Resolution and the UNSC Resolution even included the spread of democracy! (QUOTE: Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; " [HR #144; paragraph #18 (same link as above)].)

Before 9/11, there were MANY terrorist attacks against the USA (most on Clinton's watch): 1993 WTC attack; the twin African embassy bombings; the BLACKHAWK down in Somalia; and the USS Cole attack. Unfortunately, Clinton NEVER went on the offensive after any one of these attacks, and by appearing WEAK Clinton sent the signal to UBL and al Qaeda and neojihadists everywhere that the USA was weak and could be terrorized into submission.

But 9/11 changed things in the GOP - and for MOST Americans. POST 9/11 - and with a Republican in the White House and controlling Congress - America will NEVER appease or surrender to the ENEMY. Or "cut & run" by setting an artificial deadline for withdrawal. And most Americans have ALWAYS seen the War against Saddam and our current
"counter-insurgency" as part of the GWOT.

The Democrats apparently do not see it that way. And they are willing to "revise" history - and LIE - in order to promote their view that the Iraq War is and was a mistake and a diversion (AND THAT THEY ALWAYS SAW IT THAT WAY!).

I think that today's Democrats are correctly seen as "doves" who don't have the stomach for war. Unless and until the Democrats are seen as being as hawkish as the post-9/11 GOP, the Dems will NEVER get control of either the White House or Congress.

Thank God.



Anonymous said...

al ansar was based in northern iraq that saddam did not control due to the us/british interdiction. Northern iraq was being controlled by the kurds, not saddam.

Saddam is a sunni secularist, bin ladin is a shia fundamentalist. The inability of westerners to grasp why this means that they hate each other and never worked together doesnt mean they did.

It might have been in the original text to go to war, but it was still false.

Reliapundit said...

the previous comments are WRONG.
1 - ansar al islam operated with saddam's approval.
2 - (a)zarqawi was in iraq in 2001
(b) zawahiri was there in the mid-1990's. (c) saddam worked with jihadists; just as we used stalin to get hitler. allies do NOT have to be in lock-step. arguing they do is STUPID.

3 - baathism is a form of extremist Islam and NOT a secularist ideology. just google baathism's history, and read a little aboput it. (instead of regurgitating false leftist BS.)

4 - funny how NO libs/dems/lefties argued in 2002 that the clauses in HR RES#114 which linked saddam to al qaeda and other terrorist groups (like hamas and pflp and fatah) were WRONG. FUNNIER STILL that the leftists claim that Bush si asserting this tie NOW, and that bush is somehow "revising history" when it is in fact the Left which is revising history by denying the obvious truth. the truth that's in the record for all to see. what jerks!

5 - you admit saddam was sunni - this means he is NOT secularist, as sunni is a SECT OF ISLAM and NOT a tribe. there are sunni kurds and sunni malays and sunni pakis, etc.saddam repressed and committed genocoide against shia iraqis. this was not secularist genocide.
to assert it was is ASSININE.

your ignorant views prove you are an ignorant jerk trapped in the disporven and failed ideology of Leftism, and exhibiting all the signs of the death throes of denial and cognitive dissonance.


Unknown said...

re: polls offered as truth by the MSM.

I wager the public would answer this question largely in the affirmative: "If they had been so inclined, did Saddam's cabal and secret police have enough information beforehand, that if disclosed and/or pursued, would have prevented 9-11?"

Granted, even if asked, the MSM only picks poll results that support their position.

KeithM, Indy said...

Here's a better link to the Resolution.


Some more ammo, which shows that yes, Saddam was heavily involved with terrorists. That does not say he was involved with 9/11, just that he was a sponsor, and harbored terrorists.


Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi's choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?

Saddam's Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?

Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

Anonymous said...

Not to interrupt yet another DEMOCRATS = MSM = HATE BUSH rant, but you might consider that that particular criticism of Bush's speech has come from a variety of sources.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled hystrionics.

Gandalin said...

The "anonymous" poster who said that Bin Laden is a "shia fundamentalist" reveals thereby how completely he is oblivious to simple facts. Bin Laden is a Wahhabist or Salafist. he thinks that the Shia are the worst infidels on the planet.

Keithm, Indy -- thank you for a useful review.

McCoy -- nice to have you back on line. Stick around, eventually the stubbornness of the facts may even bring you around.

Marketing man said...

You have an outstanding blog here! I really enjoyed the topic you chose to write about. I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a home base business site. It pretty much covers home base business related stuff. Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Kenneth said...

business home small

Kenneth said...

business home residential security system

Kenneth said...

business home small

Web Hosting said...

Great blog! What som info. or what!

I have a window web hosting site/blog. It pretty much covers window web hosting related stuff.

Check it out if you get time.

Web Hosting Ecommerce Info said...

hmm never thought of it that way, can you peek at one of my sites? web design and hosting see if its what you could use for web design and hosting. check it out

TechDown said...

Hey, I saw your blog and thought it was great. I thought you might want to look at some great Start Home Based Business
. There's a lot of buzz about the new Start Home Based Business
and maybe some of your readers will want to know. Best wishes to you.

Anonymous said...

Imagine the power of tens of thousands of other web sites being able to easily

Anonymous said...

Last month I made $12,124 with Google Adsense...Click
here for free on how you can do the same!

Anonymous said...

I was just browsing various blogs as I was doing a search on the phrase online home based business, and I just wanted to say that I really like what you've done with your blog, even though it wasn't particularly related to what I searched for. I appreciate your postings, and your blog is a good example of how a blog should be done. I've only just recently started a online home based business website - feel free to visit it when you get a chance if you wish. Much success, Eric.

rokkgod said...

I was surfing around and found another George Bush site.George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People This place has a ton of funny videos and mp3s.

TWPAdmin said...

I enjoyed reading your blog. There is a lot of useful information about ecommerce web site hosting in it. We offer Turnkey Websites and Reliable Hosting. We also provide a blogging service that will help your site get indexed fast and keep the search engines visiting your site. Click here for more information about ecommerce web site hosting.
Thank you
TWP Admin

Anonymous said...

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about make money from home australia You should check it out sometime.

Anonymous said...


I've put up a site related to professional web hosting its only been up a couple of days. and i'm still scouting around for information and articles that may be suitable for some of my professional web hosting pages. Your professional web hostingblog seems to be a good idea, I doubt if my professional web hosting site will become as popular... but I suppose that depends on me finding those professional web hosting articles.... A well, on with my journey - thanks for reading, hope to see you on my professional web hosting site.

Take care

Anonymous said...


Just thought I would check out your blog.
I am new to blogging. I hope you don't mind me posting to your blog. If you are interested in checking out my blog and making a post that would be great.

I have a affordable hosting plan web site/blog. It pretty much covers ##WEB HOSTING## related stuff.


Kim said...

I find a lot of good content on blogs and yours is interesting.

I have a submit article services site which is a very popular submit article services site.

James Baker said...

I was just searching blogs,and I found your site, Friend! I like it!
Please accept my compliments and wishes for your happiness and success.
If you have a moment, please take a look at my site:
web site hosting sub domain
It pretty much covers web site hosting sub domain related issues.
All the best!

James Baker said...

Hi Fellow! I was just searching blogs,and I found your site! I like it!
If you have a moment, please visit my site:
web or hosting or service
It covers web or hosting or service related contents.
All the best!

Anonymous said...

Hey, just a quick hello from someone in Central America.
virtual web hosting

Anonymous said...

Hey what's up, just letting you know that someone from C.A. read your blog!

lowcost web hosting

Anonymous said...

As a top-rated company in the world of ecommerce, Infyecommercesolution has carved out a niche for itself and with the ecommerce solution provided by the company receiving accolades from clients all over the world, it has, in the true sense of the word, grown up to be a top-notch outsourcing software development company. For details on all the services provided by the company, visit http://www.infyecommercesolution.com.